#they're the ones i ranted the most about

[poorly-drawn-mdzs]

Turtles and Tribulations

[First] Prev <--> Next

[pusangkambing]

Sorry for interrupting how everyone is talking about the current lore and launching back to some time ago but since ive read some twts about qroier and his condoning if cellbit is maybe doing the killings and how he hates the fed and all that and ive always wanted to highlight the difference of how both him and qjaiden saw the trip and few minutes they were given with bobby before he fully died

Qjaiden saw those few moments as mercy. They gave her more time with their son, to make last few happy memories with him to keep forever. And she drowned herself in these memories, it is literally how she coped afterwards. By building herself a home of those memories and isolating herself from everyone else. This affected how she saw cucurucho because cucurucho was the one to give her these final moments.

Qroier saw those few moments as cruelty. They dangled the possibility of him getting his son back right in his face, made him go through so much shit and for what? A few measly minutes? How cruel of them to mock him by giving him these last moments with his son knowing he could never have this ever again afterwards. It was vicious mockery is what he believes they gave him. It affected how he grieved too, barely ever touching his memories because it only serves as a cruel reminder of who's bot there anymore, barely going to the 3rd floor of his house, to bobby's castle, keeping himself away from what both he and bobny built, busy with building the city bobby wanted because that city will be a memory he builds alone and not with bobby. And thats why he hates the federation more than ever now.

Its just interesting...

[writterings]

me with my 18 year old students that i teach at a college

[bloomshroomz]

Aromantic*

(Alternate Title: Shrödinger’s Romantic)

I keep wondering if “aromantic” is really a good word to describe my romantic orientation. I have plenty of reasons for why it is, but also plenty of reasons for why it might not be. Shrödinger’s romantic.

In order to know whether you experience romantic attraction or not, you first have to have a solid definition of what romantic attraction is. A definition which is clear, and also distinct from other forms of emotional attraction. I don’t think such a definition exists, or at least, it’s not commonplace.

“Romantic attraction: attraction that makes people desire romantic contact or interaction with another person or persons.” - UNC Chapel Hill LGBT Center

But what is romantic contact or interaction? Is it contact which is culturally considered romantic? In that case, the ways in which romantic attraction is defined would vary by culture, and even by gender. Or is it contact which one intends to be romantic? That would make sense, but is incredibly subjective. How do you know where to draw the line? What if you haven’t drawn one?

“[Romantic attraction] involves a combination of physical, sexual, and emotional feelings toward someone.” - WebMD

This definition is ridiculously vague, especially for a page which defines multiple other types of attraction in relation to romance. What physical feelings? What sexual feelings? What emotional feelings? What about alloromantic asexual people, or other varioriented people, who don’t necessarily experience sexual feelings as part of their romantic feelings?

But the article also defines aromanticism as “when you don’t have any desire for a romantic relationship,” so I can’t count on it for accuracy regardless.

“Romantic attraction is the internal pull that you experience when you are with someone with whom you internally feel connected, comfortable and interested in spending more of your life with.” - Choosing Therapy

Do people not feel connected to their friends? Do people not feel comfortable with their friends? Are people not interested in spending more of their life with their friends? Why else would people find time to connect with their friends, to confide in them, to engage with them? What about these feelings is distinctly romantic?

The article goes on to say this:

“Romantic relationships are relationships intentionally initiated and maintained for experiencing sexual and romantic feelings together, whereas platonic relationships are usually centered on another purpose like hobbies, friendship, support, work, etc. Romantic relationships can also include these purposes as well, but the platonic relationship excludes the romance and sexual feelings.” - Choosing Therapy

I ask again, what about alloaces and other varioriented people? What about people who have sex with their friends? Even when it’s taboo, it’s not unheard of. The distinction can’t be sex, so it has to be romance. So, what is romance?

Later in the article, it defines romance once again:

“Romantic attraction: The internal pull that draws your attention to the other person’s positive qualities, and your internal reaction to connect, love, share and spend time with them to have more romance.” - Choosing Therapy

I feel like I’m running in circles here. People draw their attention to the positive qualities of not just romantic interests, but to friends, family, and other people with whom they’d have no romantic interest. Connection, love, and spent time are not exclusive to romance either. If the goal is to have more romance… What is that?

Every answer I find fails to say what romance is on its own. The definitions always rely on presence or absence of sex, or other things which can just as easily be present in platonic or otherwise non-romantic contexts. Romantic attraction is consistently defined by things which are not distinctly romantic.

Is it even a real thing? I mean, I feel like it’s clearly not, but it’s also clearly very real to most people. Most people don’t think about it this hard. It’s like they were given a manual that I can never possess. It comes naturally to them. They feel romantic attraction, and they know, intuitively, that that’s what it is.

Is my lack of intuition evidence that I don’t experience romantic attraction, or am I just autistic? Maybe it’s both. When I described to my aunts my emotional attraction, they described my way of experiencing and perceiving attraction as very “intellectual,” which I initially rejected. But I think they were right. I lack the intuition to understand my feelings in any way that doesn’t involve a literal or metaphorical chart. It’s something I can’t just feel and then know like other people do.

Is romantic attraction always a “you’ll know it when you feel it” sort of thing? It seems like it. Even when I search “romantic attraction” on Google, many results either come from queer Fandom Wiki pages, discussions amongst a-spec people, Reddit, or Quora. Some results aren’t even relevant to the question, including multiple results which just describe what “aromantic” means. The opposite of what I intended to search for.

The thing is, I do have feelings which would likely be perceived as romantic to most people. I have a deep desire for commitment and companionship. To touch and be touched. To love and be loved. To be emotionally and physically intimate with other people. To feel the warmth of other people as we lay in bed together. To live out our mundane lives together. Things that most people would find incredibly romantic.

But are these things romantic if I don’t explicitly intend for them to be? Is it romantic for me to be open to it being romantic, without actively wanting that?

When I’ve described my feelings online, I’ve gotten mixed responses from other people, but I’ve generally been given similar advice from different strangers, and similar labels thrown at me, even when I hadn’t asked for advice or labels.

“I think you’d enjoy a queerplatonic relationship.”

“You might be cupioromantic.”

“You might be bellusromantic.”

And I can understand where they’re coming from. I don’t think they’re entirely wrong, either. I would enjoy a queerplatonic relationship… But not for any reason that wouldn’t apply to other committed relationship types. Queerplatonic relationships, platonic relationships, romantic relationships, and whatever else there is are the same to me in all but label.

Cupioromanticism is something I have considered. I made the flag for it when I was 15 years old as well (yes, the peach one with five stripes; I always asked to be credited anonymously), so I’m biased towards liking the flag. But the definition is “being aromantic, and also wanting a romantic relationship.”

I don’t specifically want a romantic relationship, but I do want committed relationships in general, and romantic relationships are included in that. So, maybe?

Bellusromantic is something I have also considered, and it also has a pretty flag. But I think it’s less accurate than cupioromantic. The definition is “being aromantic, and enjoying traditionally romantic things, but not wanting a romantic relationship (or not wanting a committed relationship, depending on the definition used).”

I do enjoy traditionally romantic things in a way which is not explicitly romantic, and I don’t explicitly want a romantic relationship. But I’m not opposed to romantic relationships, and I do explicitly want committed relationships.

I took some aro-spec tests, and my results had a tendency to skew towards cupioromantic, bellusromantic, and quoiromantic. Quoiromantic is another orientation which I have considered, and it might be the most accurate.

Quoiromantic is also aptly known as “whatromantic” or “WTFromantic” because the defining trait is that romantic attraction as a concept doesn’t make sense to you.

“[Quoiromantic], also known as [whatromantic] or [WTFromantic], is a [romantic] orientation defined by confusion, vagueness, and/or obscurity. A [quoiromantic] person may not understand or relate to the concepts of [romantic] attraction and/or [romantic] orientation. [Quoiromanticism] may involve confusion related to what [romance] is, whether or not one experiences [romantic attraction], and how to differentiate it from other forms of attraction. [Quoiromanticism] can also feel blurry and unclear, and may center around general confusion around one's identity and attraction. It can also refer to a lack of identification with [romantic] orientation as a concept, and can additionally serve as a label for people who cannot fit into more specific identities. [Quoiromanticism] can also refer to when one does not experience [romantic] attraction in a "traditional" manner. It is sometimes used as a catch-all term for people who know they're somewhere on the [aromantic] spectrum, but aren't sure where.” - An LGBTQIA+ Wiki (originally about quoisexuality; I changed some words.)

In a similar vein, pomoromantic (“pomo” being literally taken from “postmodern”) would also fit. My romantic orientation exists from a post-romantic perspective, where romance is understood to be made up bogus which isn’t actually fundamentally different from any other form of emotional connection.

“[Pomoromanticism] is defined as refusing, avoiding, or not fitting any [romantic] orientation label in terms of conventional labels or classifications, such as gay, lesbian, [biromantic], or [aromantic]. It challenges categorizations in favor of largely unmapped possibility and the intense charge that comes with transgression. Some [pomoromantic] people may be queer or questioning, and others may not be.” - Another LGBTQIA+ Wiki (originally about pomosexuality; I changed some words.)

But at that point, is it even worth labeling my romantic orientation? Should I just be bisexual/omnisexual? Maybe with a little asterisk at the end? Does any of this matter? Am I thinking too much? (I am.)

I think that continuing to identify as aromantic will probably close me off to potential relationships. I feel like the word gives people the wrong idea. At the same time, the way that I think about romance is fundamentally different than the way other people tend to, and I do consider my aromanticism to be a notable part of who I am and how I experience the world. Maybe I should just send this to whoever ends up being a potential partner. Probably more useful than any label.

[shadow-in-your-head]

your friendly reminder that larry johnson from indie game Sally face is canonically half alien and LITERALLY I SEE NO ONE IN THIS FANDOM TALK ABOUT IT I AM SEVERELY DISAPPOINTED IN Y'ALL

[anghraine]

Today's unhinged "good God I hate how much extreme generosity I'm expected to extend to the Peter Jackson films by people who make wildly bad faith arguments about things I like" rant:

I am very deeply tired of people insisting with zero evidence that of course the LOTR films are imperfect, but the difficulties of adapting LOTR are such that it wasn't possible for them to be better than they were—in, apparently, any respect. They just couldn't be done better, at all, because it was so hard to make something watchable at all.

This is always just like ... really? Really?? Just what prevented them from making better decisions about anything? What exactly made casting every actor of color as barely differentiated villainous hordes in the twenty-first century so necessary and unavoidable? The glamorization and vast expansions of battle scenes and insertion of "heroic" war crimes was the highest film as a medium could aspire to in the early 2000s because of what insuperable force?

What made it impossible to give Arwen a coherent character arc? The films could not have been made without the underlying assumption that most of the cast are NPCs who will only do the right thing, when they will, if prodded or manipulated or influenced by main characters? In what way is this an inevitability of adaptation or film that simply couldn't have been conceptualized differently, much less better?

There is zero explanation or justification for why any of this stuff (or the myriad other flaws) had to be that way and couldn't have been done better in any way at any point. It's just stated that the films that exist must be the best films that could have existed because they're the ones that do exist and are popular. QED.

That doesn't make any sense, though, and it doesn't convince anyone who doesn't already agree. The idea that they could not have been better in any way (including their worst quality, which again, is the extremely racist casting), that some force was preventing not only the actual filmmakers but any filmmakers that could possibly exist from doing anything better just seems patently absurd.

You can like them and respect what they did achieve without demanding that everyone buy into a baseless and irrational argument that their pop culture success means nothing about them could possibly have been done any better. Look, I was in my mid to late teens at the time. I remember the early 2000s quite well. It wasn't now, but we are not talking about an age so divorced from our own that any of these things were somehow fundamental to the media landscape.

There are ways in which the LOTR films were very good that were essential to their popularity then and now. This does not require anyone to accept that it was literally impossible for them to be better than they are or that some defense is required against every criticism of them ever.

I am not, incidentally, talking about removing Bombadil, an entirely understandable and defensible decision that the film defenders in my notes somehow always feel the need to bring up. I know that changes had to be made, that adaptation is not a word for word transcription, that it would always be a difficult text to adapt, that structurally minor elements had to go, that they are cinematically beautiful films that a lot of work and love went into. I know this. EVERYONE knows this, because for the last 20 years it's been impossible to criticize anything about them without being reminded. Their accomplishments, and their existence, do not mean that any choice made by the filmmakers must definitionally have been the right call and could not possibly have been better in any way.

[thevoidstaredback]

2021

Me: I work in a different city almost everyday this month. Can I take the train? It'll save ya gas and money and time

Parents: No

2022

Me: I work in a different city almost everyday this month. To save gas and money, can I take the train?

Parents: No

2023

Me: I work in a different city almost everyday this month. Can I take the train to save gas and money?

Parents: No

2024

Me: I work in a different city almost everyday this month. Can I take the train to save gas and money?

Parents: No

Parents, a week later: Buy a train pass because gas is expensive

Me: Okay, but I don't get paid until Tuesday

Parents, that Tuesday: Don't get a pass; we'll take you to work

Me: Alright, then I'm going to spend this $85 on food and gas

Parents, yesterday: You're taking the train to work tomorrow because gas is expensive

Me, to myself: If you'd actually teach me to drive, we wouldn't be having this problem

[qcomicsy]

Lately I've only been wishing to grab a comic about my favorite character and just have a genuinely good time reading it.

[chipistrate]

People really need to give Steel Wool a break sometimes, man- They messed up with Security Breach and now people act like EVERYTHING wrong with modern fnaf is all exclusively their fault when it's really not.

[localguy2]

Heya folks, let's do something fun

what is in YOUR opinion your best Ninjago post?

It can be anything as long as its around Ninjago, that means Character analysis/rants, AUs, art, music, writing, just anything really...

[stellacadente]

ik the euros are over and i've also said this before but god i hate people giving stupid "political" reasons for supporting one colonizer european country over the other in fucking football. most of the time you're despising one country for things that the country you're praising also does/did IT'S DUMB. none of our countries are shit. i can't stop thinking of this (not great) pro palestine page on instagram being like pro palestine spain wins over zionist england! ....... spain literally still deals weapons with "israel" give me a fucking break. it's stupid it's stupid it's stupid just say you hate england and wanted to see them lose most of us did and you don't need to come up with reasons why the other western european country is actually morally superior

[harmoniouseclipse]

Me and my freaking ship charts for my freaky mind

[xdevilrushx]

Yuffie: You gotta admit - it's been awesome having me on the team, right?

Cloud: Hasn't been boring.

Yuffie: (fondly) You can say that again. It's been a real trip.

Cute Clouffie moment during the Jenova Lifeclinger fight.

They both have such a hard time admitting it, but they really do care for each other a great deal more than they're willing to let on (especially Cloud, with his usual too-cool-for-school attitude). Even though they might squabble like siblings at times, it's obvious that they have a soft spot for each other.

[hamartia-grander]

I hope I can explain this well. You can "misgender" me (in quotes bc I don't have a gender) if it's funny. Use whatever pronouns whatever adjectives whatever label whatever is funniest in the moment. Tell me to go piss girl or slay queen. Tell me I'm just some guy. Call me a gender vacuum or whatever the fuck just make it funny. I don't want people holding back on a killer joke because the pronouns aren't in my bio, I promise you won't upset me

[sskk-manifesto]

Ep 6!!!

[quirkle2]

I was wondering if there are any rare happy ritsu moments in ur zombie au since hes always miserable I think,, like is he always miserable or is he happy/not miserable and feeling kinda good sometimes?

VWHDGDGD NO YEAH OFC HE'S HAPPY SOMETIMES im just horrible and enjoy putting him through misery

ive never been able to get a genuine smile to look right on his face in my art style either i think thats part of it. as ive said his face is just built to be mildly uncomfortable and bothered and i lean into it sm it's starting to get kinda funny

but yes ritsu is happy plenty! i think, canonically, he just seems like the type of person to me that tends to turn lemonade back into lemons. he's easy to scare and his first reaction to things is often Dread and Anxiety. he dwells on the negatives a lot and seems to be a "hope for the best, expect the worst," kinda guy, but there's a section in this post abt shigeo always loving the little things in life, and ritsu steadily learns throughout the journey on how to do that and how healing it can rly be. even if he had to grow up too fast during this whole thing and learn things a kid should never have to, the journey also gave him some good insight and lessons in other places! ritsu is smart, he figures it all out

in terms of little things here n there he's the happiest lil guy on the planet when he finds one of his favorite foods—swings his legs while he sits and munches on a kitkat bar like he's got absolutely nothin in the world to worry abt. sometimes mob does smth funny that he laughs at; for the longest time i've had this silly image in my head of mob accidentally knocking down a bucket from a store shelf and it lands on his head and he just kinda stands there and makes noises.when the noises continue out of pure curiosity about the weird echoey quality it's giving them ritsu cannot help but lose it

besides tiny things tho, when tome comes around ritsu in general is a lot happier, just cuz he has somebody to talk to that will actually respond in some way. they're sorta reluctant partners in crime at first (at least on ritsu's end) but over time and over bonding they grow to rly like each other's presence. they bicker constantly but it's almost always fond eventually, and they shove each other and playfight until mob gets antsy enough to get worked up about it. rly, tome is a godsend to ritsu's mental health—after months and months of being effectively alone with his thoughts, he finally has another person to converse with. a person His Age, too!

tome is rly good at knowing when ritsu is thinkin himself into oblivion and she's Also rly good at being the most annoying girl on the planet to yank him outta that and replace any misery with Oh My God Get Off Me You Freak. she doesn't even do this on purpose at first, but over time she learns how to tell when he's thinking too hard and, ofc, she's grown attached and she cares, so she's as obnoxious as possible to lighten the mood

when they find reigen n teru, ritsu gradually gets Much happier still. now that he knows they're safe and the gang is finally back together (and now that there's an Adult present and he can relax a lil and let himself be taken care of) his stress levels r exponentially lowered. having teru back is another instant lift to his mood—im always a big fan of teru and ritsu friendship, and i think adding tome to their dynamic simply makes it more chaotic. truly a trio of the 3 most normal teenagers in existence which will surely bring nothing but good (reigen sweats offscreen)

actually this makes me feel bad for forever torturing him im gonna go draw happy zau ritsus brb ,.,.ok imback <3